Important First Amendment Considerations on Press Credentials to Cover the California Legislature

There is a lot more here to this decision. Its reach is huge. If it stands, it will be cited for years to come on issues involving the internet, undoubtedly in ways that we haven’t contemplated.

The times, they are a changing. The San Francisco Chronicle and the San Jose Mercury News are among the papers to report on this decision and its importance. The established press is changing too, and some are becoming bloggers.

Well, on January 3 of this year, the first day they were available, I submitted another "Application for Accreditation" for a media credential to the Legislature. I'm told that my application has been approved by the Joint Rules Committee of the Legislature and the Sergeants at Arm. However, the Capitol Correspondents Association, which, according to
Joint Rule 32 of the Legislature is supposed to "authenticate" it has failed to approve me. So, I don't have my media credential.

There's an interplay between the state legislature's rules and the Bylaws of the Capitol Correspondents Association voted on by their own members. The Association surely cannot enact rules that conflict with that of the legislature and the state on an important matter such as this--and I don't believe both documents line up with each other.

I have never been contacted by this Association, and I haven't heard from them why I have not been approved for membership. I haven't been given an opportunity to defend myself. But Friday, I did see this account of a press release in the Capitol Morning Report with an interesting spin:

Steve Geissinger, Capitol reporter for MediaNews and president of the Capitol Corresspondents Association, reports that the association board is proposing new rules that would allow bloggers into the organization, making them eligible for the legislative credentials needed to access the Senate and Assembly floors and to attend many Capitol news conferences. Under the old rules, if a reporter didn't work full time for a major print, radio or TV organization, he or she couldn't be credentialed. But the association board, wishing to integrate bloggers into the press corps and under pressure from the Legislature and bloggers themselves, has called for a membership vote on the proposed new rules, Geissinger said. The new rules are in the form of amendments to the association by-laws and to its official membership application, and were developed largely by the association's secretary-treasurer, reporter Laura Mahoney of the Bureau of National Affairs. Given that bloggers are not necessarily full-time reporters, the new rules require that applicants for credentials must, as before, be covering state government news but also must derive "at least half" their earned income from "media jobs," a term broad enough to cover web postings. Applicants then are required to list those jobs, including self employment, on their applications. And they are notified that a "willful misrepresentation" could cost them their credentials. Mahoney said the board developed the new rules after much thought and work and that they are taken largely from rules already adopted by reporters covering the US Congress. Members may review the proposed changes on the association website, www.ccac.us where they appear in caps under "apply for membership" and "bylaws." Vote "yes" or "no" in an email to sgeissinger@angnewspapers.com These Legislative credentials do not automatically grant access to gubernatorial events.

What's curious is that under the "new rules" that are supposed to "integrate bloggers" into this quasi public club, it is not really opening the door wide enough for me to get in. It protects the mainstream press, assuming they are still paying their reporters and opinion writers to practice their craft. But as the owner of a start up business (The California Progress Report), despite my putting in more than the normal work week publishing this site, I've had more in expenses than I have had income. And I can only think of two other individuals in the state considered bloggers who would qualify.

When I submitted my application in January of this year, I met the requirements of Joint Rule 32, which states that "…persons engaged in other occupations whose chief attention is not given to newspaper correspondence or to news associations requiring telegraphic, radio, television, or electronic service are not entitled to the privileges accorded accredited press representatives…" This rule is still the same as it was when I initially received press credentials last year. Now there is an economic test. And a First Amendment attorney I consulted said "This doesn't appear to make any sense."

From the way this new rule is being reported, it seems to set a double standard. For this two year session of the legislature there's a thick stack of applicants who have their media credentials--and it was fine for the Capitol Correspondents Association to admit them under the application then in effect. None of them had to declare their earned income or make any declarations about it. There's one lonely application in the denied pile--mine. Just look at the way that blogger and reporter Robert Salladay in the Los Angeles Times describes it: "New Rules For Political Bloggers." It's all about what "bloggers" have to show.

I suppose I can ask the radio station where I appear weekly to pay me a few bucks to do so, but I shouldn't have to do that. Nor should I have to ask a newspaper to pick me up as a regular columnist like George Skelton, Dan Walters, or Peter Schrag. There's got to be a better way if the "mainstream media" truly wants to integrate their association with the new electronic medium. I'm told there was a similar fight when television and radio reporters wanted to join the Capitol Correspondents Association.

Gutenberg invented the printing press and that is what the colonists had--hand cranked presses when the First Amendment freedom"of the press" was written. I've seen those presses at Williamsburg and told my son how important they were. Back then you had to own a press to get out information. Now you can do the same, but you don't have to own the internet. There is nothing I am doing on a daily basis that is different from those first journalists in America. If you want to read about this, I suggest "INFAMOUS SCRIBBLERS: The Founding Fathers and the Rowdy Beginnings of American Journalism" by Eric Burns.

The First Amendment should not be for sale in California with the vendor being the established press. We don't need the equivalent of a poll tax for journalists. I value my freedom and don't want to sit at the back of the bus. I'll be driving to Sacramento tomorrow to cover the news. Stay tuned.